Email list hosting service & mailing list manager

(Previous discussion continued)
Re: 780s for print title in a record for electronic version Steve Shadle (31 Aug 2004 18:29 UTC)

Re: 780s for print title in a record for electronic version Steve Shadle 31 Aug 2004 18:29 UTC

Linnea -- Even though you are cloning the print version title B record to
create the online version record, you are still describing the online
version, not the print.  If there is no online version of title A
available, I would not have a 780 link referring back to the earlier
title.  This is different from microfilm reproduction cloning practice
where the cataloger pretty much leaves everything as is, but CONSER made
the decision fairly early on that online versions were generally not
reproductions.

If you think about the case that the online version publisher may have
listed under the content for both Title A & Title B under the later title,
then technically, there is no Title A, only Title B.  With the
aggregator-neutral approach, we try to minimize that outcome as much as
possible, but there may be cases where the reality is not the same for the
online as for the print.  Personally, I would catalog conservatively in
this case and not include the link.  --Steve

    Steve Shadle           shadle@u.washington.edu  *******
    Serials Access Librarian                         *****
    University of Washington Libraries, Box 352900    ***
    Seattle, WA 98195               (206) 685-3983     *

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, Linnea Marshall wrote:

> Colleagues,
>
> I have a question concerning including a 780 field linking to a print
> journal in a MARC record for an electronic journal that does not
> directly succeed that print title.
>
> If a print serial title undergoes a title change and is succeeded by a
> new print serial and that new print serial subsequently becomes
> available also in electronic form, does the 780/785 relationship apply
> between the original print title and the electronic format of the new
> title? (Of course there would be a 776 field to link the electronic
> version of the new title with the print version of the new title.)
>
> In OCLC when I use a bib record for a print serial as the basis for
> creating a new record for the online version of that print serial, how
> should I handle a 780 field linking to a preceding print serial title:
>
> -Delete the 780 field from the record for the electronic version
>
> -Leave the 780 field in the record for the electronic version, as is
>
> -Leave the 780 field in the record for the electronic version, to
> provide a link to the former title, but delete the $x and $w subfields,
> which link to the record for the print version of that former title
>
> -Leave the 780 field in the record for the electronic version with
> subfields $x and $w intact but add a 580 note to explain that the print
> version succeeded such and such print journal (and how, more precisely,
> should I phrase such a note?)
>
> I did not find anything that provided explicit direction in the CONSER
> Cataloging Manual or the CONSER Editing Guide, but I may have overlooked
> it.  If there is specific instruction somewhere in the cataloging
> literature, I would very much appreciate having it brought to my
> attention.
>
> Thank you in advance for your help.
>
> Linnea Marshall
> Catalog Librarian
> University of Idaho Library
> linneam@uidaho.edu
>